Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-49. I want to begin by reading the current mission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Its current mandate is:
...to increase, throughout Canada and internationally, interest in, knowledge and critical understanding of, and respect for human cultural achievements and human behaviour by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements and behaviour, the knowledge derived from them and the understanding they represent.
It is rather lengthy. It has long sentences with a lot of big words. Nevertheless, I wanted to read it because the debate on the museum centres on its mission. There are may factors at play in this bill.
Nonetheless, today's debate is not on the importance of Canada's history or on the people who may or may not have played a key role in our country and our identity. The debate is on the museum's current mandate and what the government wants to do with it.
Bill C-49 proposes new wording for the mandate. This could have major repercussions on future exhibits at the museum, its priorities, and how all that will be accomplished.
I will also read the mandate proposed in Bill C-49. If the bill passes, the mandate would be:
...to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.
Does that mandate seem so bad? No, it does not. This new mandate proposed in the bill seems very worthwhile. However, compared to the old mandate, one might be concerned about what the new wording leaves out.
For example, what happened to critical understanding? It is now just understanding. Why is that? What was the rationale behind dropping the word “critical” in the expression “critical understanding”? Honestly, it is a question worth asking.
Is it because of a desire to dismiss criticism of our nation’s history? Perhaps, perhaps not; there is no explanation, yet when it comes to deciding to strike a word from the wording of the museum's mandate, this is no small matter. We need answers and we also need to understand what impact these changes might have on the direction the museum takes.
Another example of something that has been overlooked or distorted is the focus on social history and cultural achievements. The Canadian Museum of Civilization focuses heavily on social history and cultural achievements. It provides a critical perspective by including elements from outside Canada to compare and assess what is observed, take an interest in it, and develop various perspectives that differ from those based on our own Canadian history.
Under the new mandate proposed in Bill C-49, there is a far greater emphasis on the figures who shaped Canada’s history, and a far lesser focus on social history and cultural achievements. It is not as if the focus is no longer there at all. However, what I mean to say is that the wording was chosen for a reason and will have a bearing on how the mandate is interpreted.
It is, therefore, crucial that members be aware of the real impact that the choice of wording will have on the new terms of reference for museum exhibitions, and on the freedom museum curators have to carry out projects that they consider important and relevant.
I would also like to talk about how this bill ended up before us. In fact, the Minister of Canadian Heritage boasted that the museum was his idea. I like the Minister of Heritage. He is, undoubtedly, a very good person and certainly comes up with very creative and ingenious ideas.
However, a museum's orientation should not be determined solely by the revelations of one minister or another. Are they aware that we have museologists, museum experts? Do they know we have historians? University researchers have extensive knowledge in the field and would probably have had a lot to contribute to the development of Bill C-49. However, the minister himself says that changing the museum's name and purpose was his idea. Congratulations!
It seems to me, however, that it is critically important to consult the experts who know about museum administration, exhibition management, the public's interest in the museum's artifacts, and history and how to convey it before announcing this kind of thing. The Minister of Canadian Heritage is not a teacher, museologist or historian, hence the importance of not simply rushing to convert a spontaneous idea into a bill. There were public consultations, but they were held only once the bill was introduced, its wording developed and the museum's new name announced. It was not until the minister's idea materialized that we could tell him what we thought about it.
Will we see any significant changes? Why were these consultations not held before Bill C-49 was introduced? This is unfortunate. It undermines our confidence in this bill and in the approach adopted by the Conservatives. A preliminary consultation would have shown us that they take the opinions of Canadians and museology experts seriously. However, that was not the case, and, in my humble opinion, that undermines the credibility of the process and the very basis for these changes.
When a politician announces changes to the name and purpose of a museum, what is his aim if it is not political? We have challenged many government announcements of this kind because of this partisan angle, and this is another one. This is not necessarily what will happen, but our fears in that regard are definitely warranted.
A newspaper article related the opinion of the previous president and CEO, Victor Rabinovich, who deplores the fact that the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization has been dropped. In his view, it has been the most successful brand name in Canada's museum sector, "a brand that is known and respected throughout the world." This man, who was a key player at the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has his doubts about the museum's name change and has proposed a compromise. Will he be heard? I very much doubt it, but only time will tell.
Now let us talk about priorities. Right now, the Conservative government is boasting about making Canadian history its priority. However, if this were really the case, would so many archaeologists be laid off and muzzled? Would there be so many archivists and librarians being muzzled and laid off? Would national historic sites be abandoned because they do not have the necessary funding or resources? Parks Canada and Library and Archives Canada are also suffering.
Frankly, if Canadian history were really a priority for the Conservatives, would 80% of the Parks Canada archaeologists be laid off? Would the deputy head of Library and Archives Canada, who was appointed by the Conservatives, be resigning because of spending scandals and the Conservatives’ poor management? All of these issues make us wonder.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my opinion: this debate is not about whether or not we think our country’s history is important, but rather about the museum’s new name and mandate. In fact, we can do both: we can keep our Canadian Museum of Civilization as it is and at the same time find other ways of promoting Canadian history.
Why should we change a winning combination? The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most successful museum in Canada. Let us think twice before we change it.
